The Press., 1887-03-31

not the genuine one, and with them the man so liberal in religion that he has given | 1t all away.
 Not many weeks ago called upon man who had recently erected a new house right along side of the old one, and he said to me, .sThings will look better when I get the old house out of the way" and he added, "I thought would stick to the old house until had the new one full ly completed aud furnished and ready for occupancy-in short--that would not run any risk of turning myself out of doors. He was a, wise man. But many foolish men in religious, circles are guilty of tear ing down the old house before a single suitable. stick has been hewn for new one. F,,s5-. I, | Friends, destructionist in society is indeed sorry destroyer, while a construc- tionist always bears in benefaotion and blessing.
 As come along this line of thought fancy some one inquiring, do you count Mr. Beecher a destructionist No, not personally such, I answer. He certainly was builder, and yet some of his utter ances have been used to forward the pur- poses of those who were and are destroy CTS. He has at times used expressions so unguardedly that with but little effort they
 
 bers of doubters and unbelievers.
 Now l will pursue this thought no further, but turn to the other and 2d reconsideration which forces us to modify, yes, radically change, what would other wise be our quickly given verdict. To do what said l would do, give reasons, why we should be led to commend Mir. Beech CT rather than crIticise and condemn. in many things, for he was more than hu- man, if we could add all, I shall arrive at what l mean in saying again what I have said, that MT. Beecher was promi- nent in the field of liberal thought I do not here mean liberal in the sense of loose- ness, though he has been so inter- preted. l do not mean the liberalness which practically is gross illiberality. I mean the liberality which would have men think independently and logically, the last of which, in speech, with his poetic fervor and impassioned temperament he come times seemed to forget He would have men in 1S86-7 think as men living in these years, and not alone in the past, but with the history of that past clearly in mind. | MT. Beecher was a lively hater of slavery in any form, whether touching the tyranny of men or the tyranny of ideas, and, as with his fervid eloquence he boldly at- tackled the first, with about the same force he brought bis guns to bear upon the last. In regard to the first, the ground was so distinctly visible, the conditions so appar- ent, mistakes were hardly possible. In the last were nice distinctions, metaphysic- al lines of connection to such a degree that differences would exist as to what was the true state of the case, not easy always to determine where tyranny ceased and liber- ty began, where the old was simply old, | ar xph nF rated with the new, and became part of | it. .. .
 l MT. Beecher, with whatever errors of doctrine we think he was possessed, did a great deal to bring the gospel in prac- tical way back to apostolic simplicity. To make Christ living tangible being of to- day. And that IS the need of the world, and that need is being met. He exalted Christ and Christ-like living. He did this in preaching. He did it in living. Prob ably MT. Beeoher, through tongue and pen, has spoken to as many of his fellow men as any other, and yet to grasp his sermon, interpret his book, to get his real meaning, if not necessary, it was immense ly helpfuI to know him. To know some thing of the idiosyncrasies of the mau. if we may call them such, was necessary to rthe proper understanding of the idiosyn. crasies of his speech. .-....
 I I believe he had a most wonderful re- ligious experience, which, unfolding in his great nature, reached on to that which was, and Is to many, unfathomable. Hence 1t is that they who knew him best loved him most, and trusted him most Hence. too, in the hour of his deep personal trial, those who knew him best still loved and still trusted him implicitly. They could easily believe him extravagant, cratic, over-gushing, unwise, even foolish, and certainly unsuspecting, but criminal never. So, tooy they might judge him in regard to religious things touching doctrines, rules, many ideas, using all the terms have just used, and adding careless, and even lack of logic, but indifferent, unspiritual or hypocritical, never. l
 As one, who knew him better almost than any other, has already written--"He was always more eloquent than his ser mons his life was more eloquent than his .l speech. He was indeed most elouuent when he most failed to say what he wish ed to say; when he struggled to give ut- terance to the experiences which were un- utterable, to afford to others a glimpse of the visions which had been revealed to himself. He was not logical, the seer never is He was revelator. What he had seen in the closet he disclosed in the pulpit. His power lay not in his physical dignity, his slullful but inartiicial elocu- tion, his often marred but often matchless
 use of language, his commingled sublimity and humor, his pictorial imagination, his philosophic perception of great principles crystallizing all details, his broad human , sympathies, his lightning like rapidity of mental action these were all but instru- ments of a power greater than either, greater than all combined, the power of a great and godly personality, a noble and divinely irradiated spirit. For no one
 who knew him intimately in all varieties of experience, from hours of the lightest merriment to experiences of the deepest sorrow, could ever question the sublime reality of the expenence of walking with
 God" H.,-'t These are the words of intimacy, esteem and of love, possibly partial, but yet from Q keen observer, and one who carries an- alysIs to the bottom. And, in part, these statements have been endorsed by one kwho cannot be charged with being partial , toward him, who too, has already written and said of him, among other thinRs--
 "One thing, and one important. may be ], said of MT. Beeoher, those who knew him
 best placed full confidence in his oharac
 ter and his intentions." rted uHl. have said because of Mir. Beecher't religious views, his open and sometimes , careless expression of them others have